It is interesting to see that even The Washington Compost is starting to catch on.

Statistics show rising income inequality in the United States. But, contrary to the impression created by the Occupy protests, and media coverage thereof, statistics also show that Americans worry less about inequality than they used to.

* * * *

Maybe Americans are Okunites  as in Arthur Okun, the late Yale economist and author of the 1975 book, Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.

Okun saw free markets as a source of unparalleled human progress  and of big gaps between rich and poor. Indeed, he argued, markets are efficient partly because they distribute economic rewards unevenly. Government should try to smooth out income stratification, but such efforts risk undermining incentives to work and invest.

Hence the big trade-off: channeling income from rich to poor, Okun wrote, was like trying to carry water in a leaky bucket. He wanted to move money from rich to poor without leaking so much economic growth that the whole process became self-defeating.

The American public intuitively shares Okuns concerns. * * * *

* * * *

In short, the public wants fairness but retains a healthy skepticism about the federal governments ability to achieve it.

As such, Gallups numbers do not bode well for President Obamas effort, launched in a Dec. 6 speech at Osawatomie, Kan., to win reelection as a soak-the-rich populist.

The president, like Okun, acknowledged that the free market created prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world. But he explained the recent rise in inequality too simplistically, as the result of financial deregulation and the breathtaking greed it enabled.

And rather than tackle the big trade-off directly, Obama tried to sidestep it. Rising inequality hurts us all, he argued, implying that more widely distributed income would essentially pay for itself through higher growth. He alluded to a recent study showing that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

I think it gets to heart of why the whole Occuturd wail about "income inequality" has never resonated with me.

I don't wanna live in a grey world where we all have to "earn" roughly the same amount no matter what we do or how hard we labor or how clever our inventions and products might be. Accordingly, I ENDORSE income inequality. It's ok that some people make more than I do. If I want more, I can work harder or smarter.

It is interesting to see that even The Washington Compost is starting to catch on.

Statistics show rising income inequality in the United States. But, contrary to the impression created by the Occupy protests, and media coverage thereof, statistics also show that Americans worry less about inequality than they used to.

* * * *

Maybe Americans are Okunites  as in Arthur Okun, the late Yale economist and author of the 1975 book, Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.

Okun saw free markets as a source of unparalleled human progress  and of big gaps between rich and poor. Indeed, he argued, markets are efficient partly because they distribute economic rewards unevenly. Government should try to smooth out income stratification, but such efforts risk undermining incentives to work and invest.

Hence the big trade-off: channeling income from rich to poor, Okun wrote, was like trying to carry water in a leaky bucket. He wanted to move money from rich to poor without leaking so much economic growth that the whole process became self-defeating.

The American public intuitively shares Okuns concerns. * * * *

* * * *

In short, the public wants fairness but retains a healthy skepticism about the federal governments ability to achieve it.

As such, Gallups numbers do not bode well for President Obamas effort, launched in a Dec. 6 speech at Osawatomie, Kan., to win reelection as a soak-the-rich populist.

The president, like Okun, acknowledged that the free market created prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world. But he explained the recent rise in inequality too simplistically, as the result of financial deregulation and the breathtaking greed it enabled.

And rather than tackle the big trade-off directly, Obama tried to sidestep it. Rising inequality hurts us all, he argued, implying that more widely distributed income would essentially pay for itself through higher growth. He alluded to a recent study showing that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

I think it gets to heart of why the whole Occuturd wail about "income inequality" has never resonated with me.

I don't wanna live in a grey world where we all have to "earn" roughly the same amount no matter what we do or how hard we labor or how clever our inventions and products might be. Accordingly, I ENDORSE income inequality. It's ok that some people make more than I do. If I want more, I can work harder or smarter.

Click to expand...

It's an Op-Ed piece, not a news story.

I would say that the continued OWS demonstrations paint quite a different picture of what average people think since large scale protests only happen when people are really fed up with the status quo. When that fact is combined with images of millions of people losing their homes to foreclosures while the uber wealthy lead ever more extravagant lifestyles, you should ask yourself a question. Do Americans have more confidence that they'll end up being members of the 1 percent, or do Americans have increasing fears that the standard of living for themselves and their children will decline in the coming years?

It is interesting to see that even The Washington Compost is starting to catch on.

Statistics show rising income inequality in the United States. But, contrary to the impression created by the Occupy protests, and media coverage thereof, statistics also show that Americans worry less about inequality than they used to.

* * * *

Maybe Americans are Okunites  as in Arthur Okun, the late Yale economist and author of the 1975 book, Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.

Okun saw free markets as a source of unparalleled human progress  and of big gaps between rich and poor. Indeed, he argued, markets are efficient partly because they distribute economic rewards unevenly. Government should try to smooth out income stratification, but such efforts risk undermining incentives to work and invest.

Hence the big trade-off: channeling income from rich to poor, Okun wrote, was like trying to carry water in a leaky bucket. He wanted to move money from rich to poor without leaking so much economic growth that the whole process became self-defeating.

The American public intuitively shares Okuns concerns. * * * *

* * * *

In short, the public wants fairness but retains a healthy skepticism about the federal governments ability to achieve it.

As such, Gallups numbers do not bode well for President Obamas effort, launched in a Dec. 6 speech at Osawatomie, Kan., to win reelection as a soak-the-rich populist.

The president, like Okun, acknowledged that the free market created prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world. But he explained the recent rise in inequality too simplistically, as the result of financial deregulation and the breathtaking greed it enabled.

And rather than tackle the big trade-off directly, Obama tried to sidestep it. Rising inequality hurts us all, he argued, implying that more widely distributed income would essentially pay for itself through higher growth. He alluded to a recent study showing that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

I think it gets to heart of why the whole Occuturd wail about "income inequality" has never resonated with me.

I don't wanna live in a grey world where we all have to "earn" roughly the same amount no matter what we do or how hard we labor or how clever our inventions and products might be. Accordingly, I ENDORSE income inequality. It's ok that some people make more than I do. If I want more, I can work harder or smarter.

I would say that the continued OWS demonstrations paint quite a different picture of what average people think since large scale protests only happen when people are really fed up with the status quo. When that fact is combined with images of millions of people losing their homes to foreclosures while the uber wealthy lead ever more extravagant lifestyles, you should ask yourself a question. Do Americans have more confidence that they'll end up being members of the 1 percent, or do Americans have increasing fears that the standard of living for themselves and their children will decline in the coming years?

Click to expand...

The OWS occuturds are not a representative sampling of the American people. So, your example doesn't serve to paint any different picture.

Wishful thinking on the part of another lib sheeple doesn't qualify as factual material.

One of the many problems you chowder heads have is the inability (or unwillingness, perhaps) to even properly identify your terms and define them.

You caterwaul about [ZOMG!!!] "income inequality" but you are grunting and inarticulate at best about what you propose is a viable alternative. If I work harder, and better and smarter and more productively or more creatively than you do, and I "produce" more or better goods or services, why the FUCK would I want to make the same as you?

And, what would your incentive be to become a more productive employee?

[BTW, when I say "you" and "I", I don't mean you and me literally. We're just place holders for this discussion. I disagree with you LOTS of times. But for one moment of candor, I'll concede that you aren't actually stupid. My honest position about you and your thinking is that you are simply not well thought out.]

Half the members of Congress are millionaires | iWatch NewsiWatch News | Investigation. Impact. Integrity. &#8250; Politics &#8250; Congress
15 Nov 2011 &#8211; Half the members of Congress enjoys &#8220;1 percent&#8221; status as millionaires, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics.

President Obama's class warfare mentality misreads American mood - all one has to do is to look as far as the 112th US Congress to see that the best interests of the wealthy, the top 1%, are being well represented.

Almost half the all members of Congress are millionaires and were it to reflect the economic status of Americans, there would be only 5 millionaires in the House and Senate, not 249!

President Obama's class warfare mentality misreads American mood - all one has to do is to look as far as the 112th US Congress to see that the best interests of the wealthy, the top 1%, are being well represented.

Almost half the all members of Congress are millionaires

Click to expand...

The other half are Republicans.

and were it to reflect the economic status of Americans, there would be only 5 millionaires in the House and Senate, not 249!

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!